Regulations are unconstitutional; residents have the right to defend
themselves in their homes

WASHINGTON - Two Cato Institute scholars announced today that they have
filed a civil lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of six
plaintiffs to vindicate the right of D.C. residents to defend themselves
in their home. Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies,
and Gene Healy, senior editor, joined by two other D.C.-based attorneys,
argue in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees
individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm,
such as a handgun ... within the home." But D.C. officials
"enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the
plaintiffs, of this important right."

The Cato Institute is not itself involved in the litigation, but Cato
scholars have argued consistently and vigorously that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right of responsible adult citizens to keep and bear arms
for self-defense. That is the same position now taken by respected legal
scholars - both liberal and conservative - by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit in the recent Emerson case, and by the U.S. Justice
Department in friend-of-the-court briefs filed before the Supreme Court.
Yet the D.C. city council, which is controlled by Congress and
indisputably constrained by the Second Amendment, has enacted one of the
most draconian gun bans in the nation. No handgun can be registered in the
District. Even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban cannot be
carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover, all
firearms in the home must be unloaded and either disassembled, or bound by
a trigger lock. In effect, no one in D.C. can possess a functional firearm
in his or her own residence.

The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime
neighborhood. As a result of trying to make her neighborhood a better
place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. She would
like to possess a handgun within her home for self-defense, but fears
arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and fines because of D.C.'s
unconstitutional gun ban. A second plaintiff is a Special Police Officer
who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall
Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun
within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs
include a gay man who has been assaulted on account of his sexual
orientation, and the owner of a registered shotgun who cannot lawfully
render her gun operational.

The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to prevent D.C. from
barring the registration of handguns, banning the possession of functional
firearms within the home, and forbidding firearms from being carried from
room to room without a license. "This is not about carrying a machine
gun on the streets," says Levy. "It's about having a
garden-variety handgun in your own home." Healy adds that "the
right to keep and bear arms includes the right to defend your property,
your family, and your life. No government should be permitted to take that
right away."

COMPLAINT

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G.
Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, by and
through undersigned counsel, and complain of the defendants as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Shelly Parker is a natural person and a citizen of the United
States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. Parker resides in a high-crime
neighborhood and is active in community affairs. As a consequence of
trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has
been threatened by drug dealers. Ms. Parker presently intends to possess a
functional handgun within her home for self-defense, but is prevented from
doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional
policies complained of in this action. Ms. Parker fears arrest, criminal
prosecution, incarceration, and fine if she were to possess a functional
handgun within her home.

2. Plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller is a natural person and a citizen of
the United States and of the District of Columbia. Mr. Heller resides in a
high-crime neighborhood and is a Special Police Officer of defendant
District of Columbia. As a Special Police Officer, Mr. Heller is licensed
to and does carry a handgun in the course of his employment at the
Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., providing security
for the federal judiciary. Mr. Heller lawfully owns various firearms
located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and long
guns, and presently intends to possess a functional handgun and long gun
for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing so only
by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained
of in this action. Mr. Heller applied to defendant District of Columbia
for permission to possess a handgun within his home but was refused. Mr.
Heller fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he
were to possess a functional handgun and/or long gun within his home.

3. Plaintiff Tom G. Palmer is a natural person and a citizen of the
United States and of the District of Columbia. A gay man, Mr. Palmer has
been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation and successfully
warded off the assault with a handgun. Mr. Palmer lawfully owns various
firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and
long guns, and presently intends to possess a functional handgun and long
gun for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing so
only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies
complained of in this action. Mr. Palmer fears arrest, criminal
prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he were to possess a functional
handgun and/or long gun within his home.

4. Plaintiff Gillian St. Lawrence is a natural person and a citizen of
the United States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. St. Lawrence
lawfully owns a registered long gun, specifically, a shotgun, at her home
in the District of Columbia. Ms. St Lawrence presently intends to keep the
shotgun assembled and unlocked, and presently intends to use the gun if
necessary in lawful self-defense within her home, but is prevented by
defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies from rendering
the gun useful and from ever using the gun in lawful self-defense within
the home as otherwise permitted by District of Columbia law. Ms. St.
Lawrence fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if
she were to render her gun operational and/or use the gun within her home
for self-defense.

5. Plaintiff Tracey Ambeau is a natural person and a citizen of the
United States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. Ambeau would like to
possess a functional handgun for selfdefense within her own home, but is
prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of
unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Ms. Ambeau fears
arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if she were to
possess a functional handgun within her home.

6. Plaintiff George Lyon is a natural person and a citizen of the
United States and of the District of Columbia. Mr. Lyon lawfully owns
various firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including
handguns and long guns, and would like to possess a functional handgun and
long gun for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing
so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies
complained of in this action. Mr. Lyon fears arrest, criminal prosecution,
incarceration, and fine if he were to possess a functional handgun and/or
long gun within his home.

7. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal entity organized under
the Constitution and laws of the United States.

8. Defendant Anthony Williams is the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and as such is responsible for executing and administering the District of
Columbia's laws, customs, practices, and policies. In that capacity, Mr.
Williams is presently enforcing the unconstitutional laws, customs,
practices and policies complained of in this action, and is sued in both
his individual and official capacities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

12. At a minimum, the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a
fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a
handgun or ordinary long gun (shotgun or rifle) within the home.
Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs,
practices, and policies which operate to deprive individuals, including
the plaintiffs, of this important right. Any such exercise of their Second
Amendment rights would subject plaintiffs to criminal prosecution, and
would lead to incarceration and/or fine.

13. D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 (a) provides that "no person or
organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless
the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the
firearm."

14. Although registration certificates are available for certain long
arms, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns, D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)
provides in pertinent part, "A registration certificate shall not be
issued for a . . . (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current
registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976."
"`Pistol' means any firearm originally designed to be fired by use of
a single hand." D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(12).

15. Accordingly, defendants maintain a complete ban on the home
ownership and possession of handguns by private citizens (non-law
enforcement officers) who did not register a handgun prior to September
24, 1976.

16. D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 provides:

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1),
each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such
firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful
recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

17. Accordingly, defendants prohibit the possession of lawfully owned
firearms for self-defense within the home, even in instances where
self-defense would be lawful by other means under District of Columbia
law. Indeed, the prohibition on the possession of firearms extends so far
as to deprive a licensed firearms dealer from keeping firearms "for
such person's , private use or protection, or for the protection of his
business." D.C. Code §7-2502.01(b)(2)(C).

18. A first violation of the District of Columbia's ban on the
ownership or possession of handguns or other functional firearms within
the home for lawful purposes is punishable as a misdemeanor by a fine of
up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. A second offense is
punishable as a felony by a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to
five years, or both, in the case of a handgun or other non-registerable
firearm. D.C. Code §7-2507.06.

19. Even the movement of a handgun from one location to another on
one's property carries a criminal penalty. Former D.C. Code § 22-3204
(emphasis added) provided:

No person shall within the District of Columbia carry either openly
or concealed on or about his person, except in his dwelling house or
place of business or on other land possessed by him, a pistol,
without a license therefor issued as hereinafter provided . . .

However, defendants now maintain and actively enforce D.C. Code §
22-4504, which provides:

(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either
openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a
license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law . . . Whoever
violates this section shall be punished as provided in §22-4515, except
that:

(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a
license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or
dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person's dwelling place,
place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be
fined not more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years,
or both;

20. Thus, while the penalty for carrying a handgun in public is five years
imprisonment and/or $5,000, any person who carries a handgun on his or her
own property is subject to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000
as set forth in D.C. Code §22-4515 - even if the handgun could be legally
registered. Licenses to carry a handgun are rarely, if ever, issued to
private citizens (non-law enforcement officers).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
U.S. CONST., AMEND. II, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated as though fully stated
herein.

22. By maintaining and enforcing a set of laws banning the private
ownership and possession of handguns and functional firearms within the
home, forbidding otherwise lawful self-defense usage of arms, and
forbidding the movement of a handgun on an individual's property,
defendants are propagating customs, policies, and practices that violate
the plaintiffs' individual rights under the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, damaging plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief
against such customs, policies, and practices.

23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated as though fully stated
herein.

24. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief holding that by
maintaining and enforcing a set of laws banning the private ownership and
possession of handguns and functional firearms within the home, forbidding
otherwise lawful self-defense usage of arms, and forbidding the movement
of a handgun on an individual's property, defendants are violating the
plaintiffs' individual rights under the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Plaintiffs are therefore further entitled to
injunctive relief barring continued enforcement and maintenance of
defendants' unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and
against defendants as follows:

ON THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION:

1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents,
servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation
with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing D.C.
Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), barring registration of handguns; permanently
enjoining defendants from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 in such a
manner as to bar the possession of functional firearms within the home or
on possessed land; and permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing
D.C. Code §§ 22-4504 and 4515 in such a manner as to forbid the carrying
of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license.